Heraclitus 8
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TWO HERACLITUS 8 Heraclitus has been a favorite subject for both ancient biographers and modern scholars, so there is a special need to separate the mysterious, dark philosopher from his mysterious, dark biography. The key point to keep in mind when considering the life, and especially the death, of this profound philosopher is the extraordinary antipathy, even hatred, that he roused in his readers and biographers. Their hostility, evident to a certain degree in the lives of all the philosophers, reaches unprecedented heights when Heraclitus dies buried in dung. To understand this death, the traditional biographical reaction to Heraclitus must be reviewed in detail, for it is the biographers’ reaction to and interpretation of Heraclitus’ work that account for this singular, and singularly hostile, death. DATE AND BACKGROUND For Heraclitus, most scholars accept the traditional floruit as given by Diogenes Laertius, from Apollodorus, as in the Sixty-Ninth Olympiad, 504/3–501/0 BCE.1 Heraclitus was a native of Ephesus in Asia Minor, and 59 60 DEATH BY PHILOSOPHY Diogenes Laertius gives his father’s name as Bloson or Heracon.2 Tradi- tionally, Heraclitus was considered a member of the local ruling family through his father (DL 9.1; Strabo 14.25) but was said to have renounced his inherited kingship (DL 9.6). For this information, Diogenes Laertius draws upon Antisthenes of Rhodes, who cites the renunciation as proof of Heraclitus’ “µεγαλρσυνη .” Hicks translates this as “magnanimity;”3 however, I doubt very much that magnanimity is what either Antisthenes or Diogenes Laertius had in mind.4 In the earlier section of the biography, Diogenes Laertius paired µεγαλρων with υπερ πτης , which suggests a more pejorative meaning to the use of µεγαλρσυνη in 9.6 that Hicks supplies. “Arrogance” or “superciliousness” comes closer to the mark.5 Diogenes Laertius is at pains throughout to illustrate that trait—call it pride, arrogance, superciliousness, haughtiness, or simple contempt—that was, to him and to others, most characteristic of Heraclitus and that was to culminate ultimately in complete misanthropy. Indeed, as Mouraview shows, the whole passage can be taken as a character study in arrogance.6 To explore the motives of this characterizations, then, will be our first step in understanding traditional reactions to Heraclitus and to the biography these reactions produced. THE DARK ONE OF EPHESUS In his lives in general, Diogenes Laertius supports his biographical state- ments with illustrative quotations taken from his subject’s work.7 To determine the validity of his characterization, we must first determine whether the quotations he selects are accurately used and germane. He begins his life of Heraclitus as follows: 1. Heraclitus, son of Bloson or, as some say, of Heracon, was an Ephesian. He was at this height in the Sixty-Ninth Olympiad. He was arrogant beyond all men, and contemptuous, as is clear from his writings, in which he says: (DL 9.1) Ηρα κλειτς Βλσωνς η, ως τινες, Ηρα κωντς Εεσις. υ τς ηκµαε µεν κατατ ην ενα την καιε ηκστην λυµπια δα µεγαλρων δεγ εγνε παρ ντιναυνκαι υπερ πτης, ως καιε κ τυ συγγρα µµατς αυτυ δηλν, εν ω ι ησι ... 2. Much learning does not teach wisdom, or else it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and then again Xenophanes and Hecateus. (fr. 40) [Diogenes Laertius continues: For he has it that,] Heraclitus 61 πλυµαθιη νν εειν υ διδα σκει Ησιδν γαρ αν εδιδαε και Πυθαγρην αυ τις τε !ενα νεα τε και Εκαταιν. 3. A single thing is wisdom, to understand knowledge, that which guides everything everywhere (fr. 41), [and that,] ειναι γαρ εν" τσ ν, επιστασθαι γνωµην, τεη εκυ#ερνησε πα ντα διαπα ντων. 4. Homer deserves to be chased from the [poetic] contests and beaten with a stick, and Archilochus too. (fr. 42) τν τε $µηρν εασκεν αιν εκτων αγ ωνων εκ#α λλεσθαι και ραπ ιε- σθαι και Αριλν µιως . Diogenes Laertius thus opens his biography of Heraclitus with a very general statement about Heraclitus’ father and dates and moves immedi- ately to a character study of his subject. To illustrate Heraclitus’ personal- ity and its dominant trait, arrogance, he selects three seemingly unrelated Heraclitean statements to support his opening remarks.8 By these cita- tions, he means to establish Heraclitus’ character (his arrogance) firmly in his reader’s mind. Citations 2 and 4 both censure well-known poets and philosophers; to the biographical mind, Heraclitus reveals his arrogance in these statements by showing his contempt for Hesiod, Pythagoras, Xeno- phanes, Hecateus, Homer, and Archilochus. The reason for his contempt is given in citation 3: all these men have fallen short of the Heraclitean standard of true wisdom.9 To Heraclitus, true wisdom, which guides the universe, lies in understanding knowledge and not merely possessing it. Hesiod, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, and Hecataeus fall short in that they had much learning rather than true knowledge. Homer and Archilochus also fall short of this standard. Heraclitus further suggests that they should be expelled from the ranks of honor that they falsely hold. Thus it is a biographical interpretation of these fragments and their implications for Heraclitean personality, and not their philosophical in- tent, that interests Diogenes Laertius. He begins his biography by an- nouncing that Heraclitus was an arrogant man (citation 1). Proof is given through illustrative quotations. Heraclitus insultingly dismisses several well-known and highly regarded men of letters (citations 2–4) and sets himself up as arbiter of true wisdom (as opposed to mere erudition) and sole possessor of it (citation 3). But what of the Heraclitean and philo- sophical intent of these statements? If we do not, automatically, accept 62 DEATH BY PHILOSOPHY this traditional characterization based on traditional, biographical inter- pretation of these fragments, we must instead reconstruct the thought and philosophy that underlies them. Other fragments may provide the clues for Heraclitus’ thought. Since citations 2 through 4 deal with poets and philosophers, let us see what Heraclitus says elsewhere about such men.10 5. Of those whose discourse I have heard, none arrives at the realization that wisdom is set apart from all else. (fr. 108) κσων λγυς ηκυσα, υδε ις α ικνειται ες τυτ, ωστε γινωσκειν τι σν εστι πα ντων κεωρισµενν . 6. For what intelligence or understanding have they? They believe in the bards of the people and use the mass as teacher, not knowing that, “Many are bad, few are good.” (fr. 104) τις γαρ αυτω ννς η ρην; δηµων αιδι σι πειθνται και διδασκα λωι ρειωνται µιλωι υκ ειδ τες τι ι πλλι κακι, λιγι δε αγαθ ι . Citation 6 records Heraclitus’ dissatisfaction with the people, who rely upon and believe in poets and popular wisdom, without distinguishing the few good teachers from the many that are bad. Citation 5 speaks of his disenchantment with other philosophers, none of whom have arrived at the separate nature of wisdom (a statement that recalls the definition of wisdom in citation 3). Citations 5 and 6, then, explain the censure of poets and philosophers in citations 2 and 4. Such men not only fail to grasp the nature of wisdom, but compound their failure by leading the people away from true wisdom (since the people cannot distinguish by themselves between good and bad poets and philosophers.)11 The senti- ments recorded in citations 2 and 4 have their basis not in arrogance, as Diogenes Laertius would have us believe, but in philosophy. Heraclitus reproaches these men for their philosophical failings and for teaching false wisdom to the people. The separate nature of wisdom (i.e., wisdom that is personal and unique, separate from popular or cultural belief),12 defined in citation 3 and elucidated in citation 5, is his example of one way in which they fail. Heraclitus speaks not from contempt or arrogance, as Diogenes Laertius would have us believe, but from a philosophical and perhaps even didactic point of view. An objective reader, one who has no traditional or popular view to uphold, could as easily find in these fragments concern for the people, as contempt for others. Heraclitus 63 Diogenes Laertius continues his characterization of the arrogant phi- losopher by more illustrative quotation in the next section, 9.2, which begins: 7. Insolence, more than a fire, must be extinguished (fr. 43) [and] υ#ριν ρη σ#εννυναι µαλλν η πυρκαι&ην . 8. The people should fight for their laws, as for their walls (fr. 44) µα εσθαι ρητ ν δηµν υπ ερ τυ νµυ κωσπερ τειες . Heraclitus, as an arrogant man, here censures other people’s insolence, further proving Diogenes Laertius’ characterization. Citation 7 thus fits nearly into the scheme so far; people in their insolence think to possess the truth and even lead others astray with their version of it and for this they should be censured. It does, however, require some leap in thought from the personal and specific of the preceding citation 4 (Homer and Archilochus should be beaten and banished) to the impersonal and gen- eral of citation 7 (insolence really should be done away with.) But what of citation 8? The relationship that Diogenes Laertius makes between arro- gance, insolence, and the defense of one’s walls is not immediately appar- ent; it seems neither particularly applicable to the people of citations 2 and 4, nor logically or philosophically to fit with the thought of citation 7. It is, nonetheless, important for Diogenes Laertius’ characterization, for citation 8 brings in the first suggestion of the misanthropy for which